reproductive barriers

[Nathan Poe]

It is kind of like a shell game, which shell is the facts under. The probelm is they keep moving the shells around.

All motion is relative. The shells stay put. You're the one who keeps moving around.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

i know exactly what ur trying to do, we all know what macroevolution is,

Then why don't you define it?

and i study science and have studies evolution in great detail,

That's hard to believe considering your inability to spell properly, your complete lack of understanding with respect to how science works, and your inability to back up your claims. Have you studied science at the college level?

and have found their isno substancial proof that it occurs.

Then why is it the conclusion of the scientific community? Is it some sort of vast conspiracy? Why can't you prove it to be wrong?

Sorry, but you're not convincing anyone with your rhetoric.

When i say this i am talkin about macroevolution. Now im sayin to u can u prove macroevolution?

It's hard to believe that you study science in detail considering you don't know how science works in the first place. You can't prove anything to be true in science; you can only prove that they are false. The better question is, 'can we substantiate evolution?' And the answer is yes.

macroevolution is not microevolution, ur changing topics, their two entirely different concepts,

As I said before, prove it. Prove that the mechanism for microevolution and macroevolution are different. Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution over time.

microevolution is like a frog getting greener or bigger due to environmental factors however as u know macroevolution is completely different, like a frog turning into a horse, their is no proff of this so i dont see how u believe in what u believe considering their is no facts supporting your so called "facts"

Of course there is no "proof" of a frog turning into a horse because you are parading around a strawman version of the theory of evolution, which states no such thing. You say you've studied evolution, but if you had, you wouldn't be promoting such a blatantly obvious misrepresentation of it.

oh and if u look in any book about evolution, look at the refferences, go to that book and keep going to the refferences, they all either refer to each other or back to Darwin, sorry to burst ya bubble but that to me doesnt count as a fact, just because another person says its true without any decent proof
Bless ya

Prove it. (You can't, obviously).

Are you seriously claiming that there have been no advances in evolutionary biology since Darwin?

 

[theFijian]

Being of one mind comes with maturity and perfection. If people are not in agreement, it just means they need to grow up.

This doesn't answer my original question.

 

[monkenstick]

debating with creationists is often a case of deja vu

As I said before, prove it. Prove that the mechanism for microevolution and macroevolution are different. Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution over time.

I've seen and asked this question so many times

there is either no reply, or the reply is the "no new information" argument - which is a whole different case of deja vu - the argument always ends with the creationist failing to define information in a quantifiable manner

 

[lucaspa]

Did I miss something> I usually go to the end of a thred and work my way back. I will try and go back to see if you wrote a post I did not see.

I have asuggestion. Find the last one of your posts and work your way forward. Then you don't miss things.

No, it's not a threat, I thought you knew a little bit about your Bible. Did you not read the part where every man's work will be tested by fire.

So why bring up my work? Isn't that a threat that mine won't stand testing by fire? After all, if you thought my work would stand testing, there is no reason to bring the subject up, is there?

I know that, the question is do you know your not God.

Have I ever posted to you what you posted to me about your work not standing the test of fire?

It is no threat, your work will be tested by fire.

1 Cor. 3:10-15
According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. [11] For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [12] Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, [13] each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. [14] If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. [15] If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Ah, out of context again. John, will you please stop raping the Bible?

1 Cor. 3:4 "When one of you says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos" are you not acting like worldly people? After all, who is Apollos? And who is Paul? We are simply God's servants, by whom you were led to believe. Each one of us does the work which the Lord gave him to do."

Well, the work I seem to have been given is to keep Biblical literalist creationists from perverting the Bible and denying God's Creation. Now, since evolution comes from reading God's Creation and comes from evidence God left us in His Creation, the "work" will stand any test of fire, won't it?

I worry about doing what I can to please God and living a life that is well pleasing to Him. I worry about living a life of victory and overcoming all obsticals and adversity right up to the end.

Hmmm. You seem to have left out worrying about being God's servant! You seem to worry more about yourself than you do your fellow humans or any harm that your actions cause God.

If you think my work is going to end up as ashes, then how much more are you going to suffer loss when your work is tested?

Why should I suffer loss if you do? Sorry, John, but complete non sequitor.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa: Now, can you point to anywhere on this long page where it says evolution is wrong or false?

The artical talks about "common mistakes" that people try to pass off as evolution. Even perhaps people like you Lucas. Are you going to try to deny that a lot of what people claim is evolution is not evolution at all?

People making mistakes about evolution is very different than saying evolution is a mistake. Can you see the difference? Saying evolution supports the "great chain of being" is a mistake about evolution. But evolution is not a mistake.

So, I ask my question again: can you point to anywhere in the long page where the author says evolution is wrong or false?

I obviously try very hard not to make mistakes about evolution. I often correct mistakes about evolution in this board and others. If you think I've made a mistake about evolution, you are quite free to point it out. Of course, that is going to require you to know what evolution really is in order to find the mistake. And having you learn about evolution is a good thing. So go ahead, Johnny, see if I have made a mistake about evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

Either way, I would still live the christian life for the benifits that I am able to receive here and now. Benifits that can be substantiated by science and scientific methoid.

And so Christianity is destroyed by turning it into another feel good about yourself selfish lifestyle! No wonder evangelical Christians are all for tax cuts and more for me, me, me! Jesus is weeping.

Sounds like pascal's wager, where we have everything to gain and nothing to lose. The benifit is that I do have comfort in that if there is a afterlife than I am covered. If there is no afterlife, then you say, "I will not be disappointed".

And you think God is so dumb that He won't figure out that your belief is a fake just to get the reward?

 

[lucaspa]

all evolutionary facts arent actual facts, look up on where all the sources are from. If u look back, u see the only source they all end up referring to is Darwins theory's.

Sorry, but the theory was based upon and tested against facts. Obviously you have not read Origin of the Species! Let's try just one example:
"With plants there is a vast destruction of seeds, but, from some observations which I have made, it appears that the seedlings suffer most from germinating in ground already thickly stocked with other plants. Seedlings, also, are destroyed in vast numbers by various enemies; for instance, on a piece of ground three feet long and two wide, dug and cleared, and where there could be no choking from other plants, I marked all the seedlings of our native weeds as they came up, and out of 357 no less than 295 were destroyed, chiefly by slugs and insects." Origin of the Species 6th Edition, pg 54

Now, peer-reviewed scientific papers describe facts. That's where the observations are published. So, please go to PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" for your search term. Look at the sheer number of papers. And this is in a medical database just since 1965! Please start reading abstracts and then try to give us the "there are no facts" argument.

Ok in the whole developing over time theory, sure microevolution happens all the time (frog gets greener, or bigger for the environment) however u can not use microevolution to prove macroevolution correct.

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Fact -- observation -- of microevolution producing a new species -- macroevolution.

By one person makin up a theory, and that is all it is, does not all of a sudden make it a fact. A fact is something proved, so everything to do with evolution is only a theory, nothing has been proved.

Ah, the idea that theory is just a wild guess. Yes, making up a theory does not make it fact. Testing the theory against facts does, however, make it fact. Remember, gravity is a theory. However, it has been tested so much that you consider gravity to be a fact. You don't throw yourself off buildings thinking gravity is "just a theory and not proved", do you? Well, evolution has been tested as much as gravity and, by the same way that gravity is fact, evolution is fact. BTW, see the thread "Evolution proved".

Oh and just another little note, u know darwin, well before he died, he stated he was wrong, and died a christian

Sorry, but even creationists say that is wrong. It was always a lie. It is an argument you can't use anymore. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

However, it is true that, when Darwin wrote Origin, that he was a Christian. He said so himself many times in letters! So, evolution is not atheism nor anti-Christian! See the second quote in my signature.

i wonder what u can say in defence of ur politically correct verson of where we came from

God created us by evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

wrong on all counts. evolutionary facts. google "NCBI". goto pubmed. enter "evolution". search. response should be over 10,000 articles. thanks for coming straight from hovinds site to here.

Response is over 144,000 articles!

 

[lucaspa]

Who is more believeable Nathan: Dr Dino or me?

Nathan. John, we have dozens of examples where you have made claims of what evolution is that are not evolution. You are indeed living proof that not all of what people claim is evolution is actually evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

Politically correct, in that if u believe in evolution, that means hey i can do what i want, when i die im dead, no heaven, i dont havta worry about any God or heaven. The bible is not politically correct, and u obviously know that, can u explain to me how evolution is not politically correct?
the reason i said its politically correct is that the world trys to embrace the ideals and make it (evolution) socially acceptable. By being socially acceptable to believe in these "facts" (which are only theorys) it gives humans a care free attitude, to not think about themselves, to get money, to get drunk, being sexually imoral, basically to live a sinful life. Dont get me wrong by no way am i sayin u are like that, ur probably a great citizen however by evolution being politically correct it allows their to be more ppl getin into the worldly lifestyle, thus more product being bought and the rich get richer.

Evolution sys nuthin bout morals or ethics. Why do u think he is a great citizen when he believe evolution sos he can get into the worldly lifestyle and sin?

 

[lucaspa]

i know exactly what ur trying to do, we all know what macroevolution is, and i study science and have studies evolution in great detail, and have found their isno substancial proof that it occurs.

If you have studied what you claim, then you know that macroevolution is speciation. That is, the formation of a new species from an existing one. See the thread http://www.christianforums.com/t155626 for just a few examples of observed formation of new species -- macroevolution.

macroevolution is not microevolution, ur changing topics, their two entirely different concepts, microevolution is like a frog getting greener or bigger due to environmental factors however as u know macroevolution is completely different, like a frog turning into a horse, their is no proff of this so

Yes, there is. Even by your warped defintion of "macroevolution". Frogs and horses are in different classes in taxonomy. Well, we have transitional series of individuals showing the evolution of a species in one class thru several different species to a species in a different class.
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

These books are difficult to find, but any good-sized university library will have them.

i dont see how u believe in what u believe considering their is no facts supporting your so called "facts"

The facts exist. You are just not aware of them and Dr. Dino has lied to you about their existence. I'm really sorry you have been conned. Dr. Dino has committed a grave sin in doing so.

 

[lucaspa]

Bellman: First up, ALL facts are facts, by definition

It is kind of like a shell game, which shell is the facts under. The probelm is they keep moving the shells around.

It only appears that way because you don't understand how facts are related to theory. I know I've explained this to you before, John, and your post says you didn't pay attention. However, I'll keep trying. Try to pay attention. Ask if you don't understand or if you think you found an error. But please read carefully. Make sure you are commenting on what I actually wrote, not something I didn't.

Facts are observations. Observations don't change. Apples fall to the ground. However, explanations for those observations do change. The first explanation for apples falling to the ground was Newton's theory of gravity: mutual attraction. That explained it very well for quite a long time. Apples falling was used to test Newton's theory. Since they did not show it to be false, we accepted Newton's theory as correct. There were other tests of Newton's theory: flight of cannonballs, movement of planets in their orbits, etc. All these tests (facts) were consistent with the theory.

However, new facts came to light that were inconsistent with Newton's theory of gravity. For instance, Mercury's orbit wasn't explained by the theory. So a new theory of gravity -- Relativity -- was devised. Apples falling were still explained by Relativity, but it also explained Mercury's orbit. So the observation of apples falling was moved from Newton's theory of gravity to Relativity. Same observation, but now tested against a different theory.

Another example is the scratches on rocks in Europe. William Buckland in 1825 explained these by the theory of the Flood. Boulders and sand rolling thru the Flood was supposed to have made the marks. However, later Louis Agassiz showed that many of the marks were inconsistent with being scratched by rocks or sand in moving water. Instead, the marks were consistent with being scratched by rocks embedded in glaciers. And so the facts remained the same, but now they were explained by the theory of an Ice Age and not the Flood.

 

[lucaspa]

Politically correct, in that if u believe in evolution, that means hey i can do what i want, when i die im dead, no heaven, i dont havta worry about any God or heaven.

Why would accepting evolution mean that? Rev. McCosh (second quote in my signature) certainly worried about God.

The bible is not politically correct,

The literal interpretation of the Bible isn't Christian, either.

the reason i said its politically correct is that the world trys to embrace the ideals and make it (evolution) socially acceptable. By being socially acceptable to believe in these "facts" (which are only theorys) it gives humans a care free attitude, to not think about themselves, to get money, to get drunk, being sexually imoral, basically to live a sinful life.

No it doesn't. Think about evolution. Evolution means passing your genes on to children. If you thought only of yourself and did nothing but get drunk, your children would not survive because you would not be taking care of them. So, evolution forces you to think of others in order to survive and reproduce: your mate, your children, your tribe. People who don't think of others don't pass their genes for selfishness on to the next generation.

thus more product being bought and the rich get richer.

Excuse me, but having more product being bought and the rich getting richer is being promoted by evangelical Christians in their version of selfishness that they call Christianity. I would worry more about that perversion of Christianity than I would about evolution.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan. John, we have dozens of examples where you have made claims of what evolution is that are not evolution. You are indeed living proof that not all of what people claim is evolution is actually evolution.

In all fairness, lucaspa, John's not competing with me, he's testing his credibility against Kent Hovind.

You'd think John'd set his sights a little higher.

 

[JohnR7]

So why bring up my work? Isn't that a threat that mine won't stand testing by fire? After all, if you thought my work would stand testing, there is no reason to bring the subject up, is there?

It was not a threat at all, I was just concerned that maybe your wasting to much of your time on things that in the end will not add up to more than a pile of beans. Of course I am sure that you could care less if I am concerned or not. I am simply answering your question as to why I brought it up.

I try to see past your childish way of doing things to get at what is really going on. You need to allow the Bible to show you what it means to be mature. Your going by man made opinions that are just not accurate. It is not so difficult, just use your concordance, do a word search on the word "mature". You will begin to have a working understanding of the concept in no time at all. The KJV actually uses the word: "perfect" but do not let that throw you.

 

[The Bellman]

Darwin did die a Christian, can u prove otherwise?

Darwin did NOT die a christian, nor did he recant. That is a lie. Why don't you actually do some research and learn?

Politically correct, in that if u believe in evolution, that means hey i can do what i want, when i die im dead, no heaven, i dont havta worry about any God or heaven. The bible is not politically correct, and u obviously know that, can u explain to me how evolution is not politically correct?

What nonsense. Evolution does not equate to atheism. The vast majority of the world's christians accept evolution. Again, do some research and learn.

the reason i said its politically correct is that the world trys to embrace the ideals and make it (evolution) socially acceptable. By being socially acceptable to believe in these "facts" (which are only theorys) it gives humans a care free attitude, to not think about themselves, to get money, to get drunk, being sexually imoral, basically to live a sinful life. Dont get me wrong by no way am i sayin u are like that, ur probably a great citizen however by evolution being politically correct it allows their to be more ppl getin into the worldly lifestyle, thus more product being bought and the rich get richer.

More nonsense. Evolution has nothing to do with, and says nothing about, what behaviour is moral or immoral.

i study science and have studies evolution in great detail,

Why don't you try to stick to the truth? You haven't studied science or evolution "in great detail" - you don't know the first thing about science, as you have shown.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It was not a threat at all, I was just concerned that maybe your wasting to much of your time on things that in the end will not add up to more than a pile of beans. Of course I am sure that you could care less if I am concerned or not. I am simply answering your question as to why I brought it up.

Considering that 99% of what lucaspa says tends to fly over your head like an F-15 doing MACH 2, I'd say you had little reason to even bring up his work.

I try to see past your childish way of doing things to get at what is really going on. You need to allow the Bible to show you what it means to be mature.

John, I have yet to see lucaspa do anything of the sort. Can you cite a single post in which he, and not you, do this?

Your going by man made opinions that are just not accurate. It is not so difficult, just use your concordance, do a word search on the word "mature". You will begin to have a working understanding of the concept in no time at all. The KJV actually uses the word: "perfect" but do not let that throw you.

Of course. The Bible means whatever JohnR7 says it means.

Remind me to write that into my concordance.

 

[The Bellman]

I must confess at this point that the idea of JohnR7 attacking Lucaspa on scientific grounds has given me the best laugh I've had in a long, long while.

However, inspired by JohnR7's example, I'm going to challenge Tiger Woods to a long-driving contest.

 

[GodSaves]

One who tells lies and gets caught usually declares they weren't lying in the first place. They usually offer another explanation that is a lie as well. Thus the lie continues on and on, evolving(more elaborate) and strays farther and farther away from the truth. Reminds me of macroevolution.

Any wonder why NASA is trying to find life on Mars? So they can say that is where human life began, or aliens spawned us. Francis Crick put forth the idea. Of course God would be a crazier idea then aliens putting seeds in the ocean and we spawned from that, wouldn't it?